Tá suim ag a lán abhcóidí sa Leabharlann Dlí sa Ghaeilge. Níl siad in ann cásanna a dhéanamh sna cúirteanna trí Ghaeilge mar níl an caighdeán oiriúnach acu. Tá sé ag roinnt abhcóidí, ach níl sé ag formhór dóibh. We must be honest about having a system in place that allows and provides for an efficient and reliable system to be available for people who wish to have their business in court conducted in Irish. There is little point in continuing with what in reality has been a fiction. The fiction goes back to the 1929 Act where that system was put in place. For 80 years it simply has not been the reality at the level that was contemplated in 1929.

I was delighted to pass the test but somewhat miffed to discover that my friend, who had never learned a single word of Irish ever because he had been given some sort of dispensation or exemption in school, passed with equally flying colours ten minutes later. This was the sort of fiction that was evident. Admittedly, this has improved in recent years. I agree very strongly with my colleagues’ point that we need to put in place a system that does justice to the language and makes presumptions about people’s knowledge thereof. As Senator McDonald rightly said, the system should encourage professional lawyers to learn Irish and reach a certain level of proficiency while at the same time favouring those who make an effort to reach a higher level.

There was some debate on a number of amendments tabled by my colleague, Deputy Brian O’Shea, in the Dáil. The then Minister of State, Deputy Carey, said that during Committee Stage in this House, he would return to some of the matters raised. Nuair a bheidh an díospóireacht againn, b’fhéidir go mbeidh further discussion againn on individuals who are already in the system. I refer also to those who went through the system 30 or 40 years ago but who did not pass the test and were deprived of their qualification. I do not know why they did not have the same outcome as my friend who did not have a word of Irish. Perhaps they did not have the same examiner.

I welcome the basic thrust of the Bill. There is no question that it is progressive although there are a few issues I would like to revisit on Committee and Remaining Stages.

Last night’s Prime Time Investigates programme on child protection services, showed the alarming extent to which children at risk of abuse or neglect are being failed by our social service system.

Perhaps the most shocking disclosure was that children regarded as Priority One cases – those most at risk of sexual or physical abuse – did not have a social worker allocated to them. We also saw where filing cabinets packed with documents relating to numerous cases, had not yet even been examined.

The programme drew attention to a particularly outrageous case where a foster parent reported evidence of sexual abuse of a child in her care, only for her warnings to be ignored. There seemed to be no action taken by the HSE and the suspected parents were allowed ongoing regular access to the child. It is quite clear that children in such cases are not being afforded the full protection to which they are entitled under the Children Act 2001.

It is little wonder that doctors and teachers who have to refer cases to social services have become so frustrated and disillusioned, when they discover that in all liklelihood, nothing will be done.

It was very disappointing to hear the response of new Minister of State Barry Andrews on Morning Ireland this morning. One might have expected that a new Minister would bring a new perspective and a new enthusiasm to the job. Instead what we got was a new voice, trotting out the same old excuses and offloading responsibility to the HSE. Where was Minister Andrews’ anger? Where was his determination to get this problem sorted out?

The reality is that children are being placed at unacceptable risk and that unless our child protection services are properly resourced many will face continued abuse or even death.

Just last week the newly-elected Taoiseach Brian Cowen told the Dail that the particular responsibility of the Govt was to “represent the interests of our young”. It’s now time for him to act on that worthy sentiment by ensuring that the HSE recruitment embargo is lifted and that an emergency programme of recruitment of social workers gets under way immediately.

Last night, the second in our series of three meetings on the Lisbon Treaty took place at Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove. I was extremely impressed with the turnout, which resulted in extra chairs having to be found so that everyone had a seat!

I was joined by Blair Horan of the CPSU and by Holly Kilroy, International Officer of Labour Youth.

I began the meeting by telling the audience that a vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty will mean a strong Ireland on the European stage and a strong EU on the world stage.

“The Lisbon Treaty is not going to sort everything. But there is enough in this document for people to vote Yes on June 12th.

“The No side are rolling out arguments that have been rehashed from debates we’ve had since we voted to join the EEC in 1972. Any arguments that the EU has left items out of this treaty in order to push it through is plain wrong.”

Holly admitted to the audience that she had come to the meeting the day after her Final Exams in College; such is the strength of her support for the Lisbon Treaty.

“Passing this Treaty will guarantee the rights that Labour has fought for,” she said. “The Charter of Fundamental Rights contains some vital rights that will only become legally enforceable if Ireland votes Yes. This even includes a prohibition on discrimination, which is a massive step for the EU to take.”

Blair told the crowd that any fears that Ireland is ‘surrendering’ to a United States of Europe should be dismissed.

“We live in a different century now. If one looks at the history of Europe, the 20th Century saw the absolute devastation of Europe through two World Wars, genocide and instability. The EU is a guarantee of stability. If Ireland was on its own in the current economic climate, our unemployment would be through the roof and our currency would be devastated.”

In a Question and Answer session at the end of the meeting there was a surprising number of questions on the Lisbon Treaty and its possible link to abortion and euthanasia being brought in to Ireland.

“It is untrue to say that Ireland will be forced to bring in abortion and euthanasia” I said.

“There are many untruths out in the public mind and it is our job to separate the truth from the myth.”

The final Information meeting on the Lisbon Treaty takes place this Thursday, 15 May in Kiely’s, Mount Merrion. It is a public meeting and begins at 8pm. Everyone is welcome.

Senator Alex White will continue his series of public information meetings on the Lisbon Treaty this week.

After a successful start in Dundrum last week, Senator White invites the public to join him in Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove on Monday May 12th and Kiely’s, Mount Merrion on Thursday May 15th.

Confirmed guests for the meetings include Blair Horan of the CPSU and Holly Kilroy of Labour Youth, with more to be announced.

“I encourage anyone who wishes to learn more about the upcoming referendum to join us this week,” Senator White said. “So far there has been a lot of talk from both sides of the debate. What my colleagues and I hope to do is to dispel a lot of the myths surrounding this Treaty and explain it in plain English.”

“The referendum is an opportunity for those of us who want to promote a social Europe, to fight for that at the heart of Europe and the only way we can fight at that heart is by voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

Senator White also said that he was encouraged by the attendance and quality of debate at the previous meeting.

“Our meeting in Dundrum was very successful. The audience was a good mix of people who were curious about the Treaty, those concerned about its consequences and those who sought more detail on its contents.

“I believe that it satisfied the needs of all those people.”

Information Seminars on the Lisbon Treaty, organised by Senator Alex White will take place on Monday 12th May in Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove and on Thursday 15th May in Kiely’s, Mount Merrion. Both meetings begin at 8 pm and all are welcome.

Labour always believed that the former Taoiseach’s High Court action challenging the Mahon Tribunal’s right to question him about certain statements he made in the Dail was more about delaying the work of the Tribunal than upholding the constitutional right to privilege of members of the Oireachtas.

The tactic worked in terms of delaying the Tribunal from questioning him on matters of relevant public interest. However, it could not prevent his exit from office much earlier than he had planned, which was largely due to the determination of Labour and other opposition parties to hold him to account politically.

At the time the action was initiated we acknowledged that there were serious legal and constitutional issues surrounding the privilege of members of the Oireachtas. A number of the issues raised by Mr. Ahern’s legal team were conceded by the Tribunal early in the hearing. The High Court judgement on the outstanding matters will now have to be studied to establish the extent to which the questions relating to privilege have now been further clarified.

Given that the Tribunal has access to its own information and the fact that many of the statements made by the Taoiseach in the Dail were also repeated outside, I do not believe that this judgment will have a significant impact on the Tribunal’s further inquiries into Mr. Ahern’s financial affairs.

There have been many congratulations for the former Taoiseach and we now have had a month of praise and thanksgiving. Much of it has been deserved, some of it less so, and some of it has been bordering on the nauseating. It is now time to get down to business. I wondered at one stage over the last few weeks whether the former Taoiseach would outdo Luciano Pavarotti, who has the world record of 165 curtain calls in a single performance. The former Taoiseach went close to that record.

While it is a matter for debate whether this is a new Government, it is an opportune moment for us to have that wider discussion. I ask the Leader to arrange for the new Taoiseach to come into this House and to set out his ideas, his proposals and his vision for the post-Celtic tiger Ireland into which we are facing. Before we can get down to the important debates with individual Ministers, I would echo the call to bring in the Taoiseach to the Seanad for that type of debate. We can then grapple with the challenges that exist in the economy, such as the deepening inequalities that have characterised the last decade of growth, the spectacle of 190,000 children at risk of poverty in a country with such enormous wealth held by so few people.

If we had that debate, we could consider the sort of public service we want to have in this country, how we fund it, how we use the taxation system in order to bring about a fairer society, and whether we want one health service for the well off and one for everybody else. I would like to hear the Taoiseach set out his stall on these issues in this House. The Opposition parties are also under a duty to put forward their ideas and their vision, and this would provide an excellent opportunity to do that. I join with my colleagues in congratulating the new Taoiseach, but I hope we get down to business today. I would welcome the opportunity to have such a debate at the earliest possible occasion.

Senator Alex White has asked the public not to approach the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty with fear.

The Labour representative in Dublin South was speaking during a debate in the Seanad on Thursday.

“There is almost a ‘Little Ireland’ approach from the No Campaign, who say that if it is out there in Europe, we must resist it and put the brake on because it can only go against us,” he said. “Those arguments have been heard repeatedly.

“We make a decision to give up or share sovereignty. It is not taken from us. The Treaty is not a raid on our sovereignty by this big faceless body. We will make any judgment ourselves.”

Senator White is seeking a Yes vote on June 12 and he told the Seanad that the Lisbon Treaty will mean more transparency in the EU and will increase the strength of the country in any future negotiations.

“The No Campaign have stated that we will not have a Commissioner sitting at the table for five out of the 15 years after 2014. Comparisons are made with TDs. People elect TDs to a sovereign Parliament. We must understand that the European Union appoints Commissioners in a different context. They are not there to fly the flag for their country. That is not what they are appointed to do,” he told the Seanad.

Senator White also dismissed claims that a No vote would send politicians back to renegotiate, saying that “the opportunity to negotiate a deal has been taken”.

“It is clear that an opportunity is available for those of us who want to promote a social Europe, to fight for that at the heart of Europe and the only way we can fight at that heart is by voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

“A Yes vote on June 12 will mean that Ireland will go to the EU in the future with a strong hand. It is about having the self-confidence, and the people should have enough confidence to vote Yes.”

Senator White continues his series of public information meetings on the Lisbon Treaty in Loreto Community Centre, Nutgrove on Monday May 12th and Kielys, Mount Merrion on Thursday May 15th. Both meetings begin at 8pm and include some special guests. All are welcome.

Last night, the Seanad debated the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2008 brought forward by the Labour party. After a debate of nearly two hours, with some interesting input from both sides of the house, the Bill was voted down by the government parties.

The Bill would have gone some way to redeem the Freedom of Information Act from the bruising it received due to amendments by the Fianna Fáil/PD government in 2003. Those amendments added fees of between €10 and €150 to FOI requests which has resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of requests received, from a peak of almost 18,500 in 2003 to just over 10,500 in 2007.

Below is my own speech to the Seanad last night. I spoke at the very end of the debate.

I represent something of an unreconstructed approach to freedom of information, namely, that the presumption should be precisely that freedom of information. The case should be made for the exception and not the other way around. The rationale behind the 2003 amendments was, and much of the opposition to what we are proposing is, motivated by a completely different approach to freedom of information. The latter is, in part, grudging.

At the very least, it can be characterised by a sense that the individual must make a case for obtaining particular information rather than it being presumed that the information should be freely available, but with reasonable and rational exceptions. The starting point should be to have the widest possible latitude and freedom while a case can be made in legislation and administrative rules for where the exceptions should apply. It has as much to do with our culture and approach to the issue as it has with the individual legislative provisions.

I am sorry to say that the Minister of State’s contribution is from the old school. We know the Act was introduced in 1997 and that extra bodies have been added. We know all these things, which have been set out in the Minister of State’s speech.

To take the fees issue, however, it is difficult to see how the change in fees in 2003 was motivated by anything other than a desire to deter people from making freedom of information applications. Why else was it done? The Minister of State ought to be more direct with us as to why that was done. It comes through in his speech which quotes the extreme but interesting example of a request for access to the diaries of a number of civil servants and Ministers – the very idea of it. It involved reading through thousands of pages of documentation. At least that particular application had the advantage of only ever having to be done once as regards the diaries of civil servants and Ministers.

We understand that there is a burden on the State and the public service in respect of freedom of information. By introducing legislation in 1997 and believing in freedom of information, as Senator Callely said, we must be prepared to accept that a burden goes with the freedom we want to provide. It is no use taking the approach that it is so onerous and requires so many hours of work that we must restrict it. The presumption in any democratic society, especially a modern democracy such as ours, should be to make the information available, accept the burden and live with the cost to the State. I accept there is a cost to the public purse in providing freedom of information, but most entitlements we introduce come with a price tag. We must be prepared to accept that price tag within reason. It is not good enough for a Minister to point to the extraordinary cost or how onerous it is on us.

Labour Senators will introduce the party’s the Freedom of Information Bill in the Senate next Wednesday during Labour Party Private Members Time.

Senator White said: “This Bill is designed to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to a number of key bodies including the Garda Siochana and to repeal the regime of charges for access to information introduced by the Fianna Fail/PD government in 2003.

“The Freedom of Information legislation enacted by the Rainbow government was grounded in the belief that public bodies must be accountable to the ordinary public they are there to serve and that accountability requires openness. Freedom of information overturns the presumption of official secrecy set out in the Official Secrets Act and replaces it with the legal presumption that the public has a right to know.

Senator Hannigan said: “Freedom of information, everywhere it has been introduced, has brought about more open government and better administration of public services. Doing business in the open is the best guarantee of efficiency.

“However, this government has always been hostile the concept of freedom of information and has done its best to undermine the original Act by introducing legislation in 2003 that severely restricted categories of information that could be applied for and by imposing a series of heavy charges designed to discourage people from using the Act.

“This Bill seeks to undo some of that damage and to extend the scope of the Act to key public bodies that this government has so far refused to have included.”

We had the first of four planned information meetings on the Lisbon Treaty, on Thursday, April 24th at the Taney Parish Centre, Dundrum. All of these meetings are open to the public and we hope that people come along to inform themselves and debate the issues.

Liz McManus T.D. and Blair Horan of the Civil and Public Services Union got the ball rolling on Thursday night. Liz pointed out that the core values of the Treaty are in alignment with the core values of the Labour Party emphasising as they do equality, democracy and social justice. The Treaty will make the European political process more transparent. It will also allow for a Citizenship Initiative, whereby European citizens can mobilise to put an issue of concern to them on the political agenda.

Blair focused more on the role of the Lisbon treaty in fleshing the social and economic rights of European citizens. The Lisbon Treaty, he said, introduces for the first time the prospect that citizens can look to the European Union to vindicate social and economic rights. He said he was optimistic about the potential benefits of this for European workers into the future. A lively discussion ensued.

Barry Desmond, former T.D. and M.E.P. expressed his concern about the changing political landscape in Europe, particularly the possibility of an emerging right-wing bloc lead by Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Nicolas “Starkozy” in France, and potentially supported by euro-sceptics in Poland, and the U.K. Desmond said that Ireland and other European countries needed to remain vigilant as the EU has the potential to fragment politically.

The meeting also discussed Ireland’s role within the EU peace keeping initiatives, the arguments being put forward by Libertas and the tardiness of the government in getting out and joining in the debate on the Lisbon Treaty.

The next information meeting will take place at the Community Centre, Nutgrove Avenue, Rathfarnham on Tuesday, May 12th. I hope to see you there.

[youtube=”http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDTMbnOgBE”]
Senator Alex White has expressed his frustration and disappointment with the lack of progress of extension plans for St Colmcille’s Junior School and Senior School in Knocklyon.

Senator White was speaking in the Seanad yesterday where he highlighted the situation the staff and pupils now find themselves in.

“The difficulty is that the schools wish to apply for planning permission but so far the Minister has not seen fit to permit the school to proceed with this application,” Senator White told the Seanad. “The schools have slightly fewer than 500 pupils in prefabricated accommodation with a total of 16 prefab classrooms and 14 prefab resource teacher rooms. Most of these prefabs were installed 20 to 25 years ago.

“It is vital that this project proceeds,” he explained. The School is awaiting permission to apply for planning permission since last November.

In response, Minister of State Máire Hoctor told Senator White that the school has “a significant amount of accommodation but still has a shortfall” and failed to set a date to allow the school to apply for planning permission.

Minister of State Hoctor cited the current economic situation of the country for the slow progress. She told the Seanad that “further announcements will be made as the budgetary position allows. This school project will be considered in that context.”

Senator Alex White said that describing the school’s accommodation problems as a ‘shortfall’ was “the greatest understatement I have heard for a long time” and was quick to point out to the Minister of State that allowing the school to apply for planning permission would not cost the Government a cent.

“I do not understand why, in circumstances where costs are not entailed, the Minister could not see her way to giving the green light to the schools. The momentum exists in the schools and in the local community which provides fantastic support for the schools,” he said.

Reports that the HSE is unable to respond adequately to hundreds of cases of vulnerable children because of staff shortages and under-resourcing is a further indication that our health services, and our child protection services in particular, are run on the basis of profit and loss accounts and balance sheets, rather than on the basis of the needs of vulnerable children.

The book-keeping culture that prevails in the HSE has led to a situation where the protection afforded to children is largely confined to emergency action. Local child protection teams simply don’t have the resources they require to make early interventions, in order to prevent a problem in a family escalating into a crisis.

Social work teams are hugely under-resourced, and thanks to the HSE staff recruitment embargo, just about every one of them is operating well below full staff complement.

When you consider the massive backlogs in many areas of the country, the lack of an out-of-hours service, and the lack of specialist residential places for children with challenging behaviour, the scale of the problem is massive.

In addition, it is unacceptable that the information which emerged today is three years old at this stage. Under the Child Care Act 1991, the HSE is obliged to report on their child care activities on an annual basis. There is little value to this requirement if the information they provide is not delivered in a timely basis, so that problems can be identified, addressed and resolved quickly.

It is also extraordinary that the report referred to in today’s Irish Times appears to have been sent to the Minister by the HSE in late February, but is only coming to public attention today. While the report was placed on the HSE web-site some weeks ago, both the Minister and the HSE must ensure that there is immediate publication of such reports in the future, especially where their contents are already years out of date.

The constituents of Dublin South and beyond will have an opportunity to discuss many of the issues surrounding the forthcoming referendum on the Lisbon Reform Treaty. Along with my colleague Liz McManus TD and Blair Horan, General Secretary of the Civil Public and Services Union (CPSU), I will be fielding questions on the Treaty and providing a forum for the general public to air their views on Thursday 24 April.

The venue will be Taney Parish Centre, Dundrum and the event starts at 8.15 p.m.

This event is a public meeting so everyone is welcome. I look forward to seeing you all then.

The report of the Independent Inquiry into how a lecturer in child care policy at the Athlone Institute of Technology was able to remain in his post two years after his conviction for serious sexual offences in Holland raises serious questions about the operation of child protection measures in this country.

Parents will find it hard to understand how no action was taken despite the then Midlands Health Board and the Gardai being notified of it within days of its occurrence in Holland in June 2004.
This was a serious incident involving violence and indecent acts.

Surely we should have accepted by now that when it comes to the welfare and protection of children no avoidable risks should be taken.

In this case it appears that proper procedures were followed and that the appropriate authorities were notified, but no action was taken but for reasons that were not entirely clear.

We must now learn the lessons of this affair and ensure that not only are appropriate procedures in place, but that they are acted upon when incidents like this occur.

The recommendations made by Mr. Devine in his report should now be placed for consideration before the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I wish to be associated with the tributes to the former President, Dr. Paddy Hillery. His death represents the passing of another member of an extraordinary generation of politicians, namely, those who were born immediately after independence and who came to prominence in the middle part of the previous century. Members of that generation are characterised by a particular kind of commitment to public service. Different generations have various ways of expressing the commitment to which I refer. The type of commitment displayed by Dr. Hillery could be almost described as a form of sacrifice.

This is a recurring theme with regard to Dr. Hillery. He said himself he felt he did many things out of a sense of duty. There was a sense of selflessness about it. It can absolutely be said of that generation, and particularly of him, that his commitment to politics and public service was motivated by nothing other than a sense of duty and of honour at serving one’s country. There was never any question of its being done for personal gain or opportunity. This is something that characterises that generation of politicians and public figures which, in a sense, is now passing. His passing is a particularly poignant example of that.

As others have said, Paddy Hillery distinguished himself in a number of different positions in Government. In particular, as Minister for Education, he laid the groundwork for much of the work that was done later. He was essentially a progressive Minister for Education and did a large amount of work in that position. For a short time he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, but he was particularly important in his post at the Department of Labour, introducing industrial legislation in the late 1960s which is still an important part of our industrial relations infrastructure.

Others have referred to Dr. Hillery’s work on Northern Ireland. I endorse the remarks of Senator Fitzgerald with regard to his contribution to the major issues of peace in this country and our involvement and commitments in Europe. I remember when he stood up to the Irish Government in respect of equal pay, which I welcomed. It was vitally important in those early years of our membership of the EEC that we did not see the benefits of our involvement as flowing in one direction but that we also made a commitment to a fundamental right to equal pay, which was then expressed in legislation in 1974. This was a vitally important, progressive move. He was clear that it had to be implemented and he did the country a great service in this regard.

I join with my colleagues in conveying my sympathy and condolences to Paddy Hillery’s family, Dr. Maeve Hillery and Dr. John Hillery, and recall his great personal warmth as a human being as much as a politician. His loss will be felt greatly in this country. I wish to be associated with today’s tributes.

We have not yet begun to get our heads around what is happening in terms of the economic situation. Last week, the greatest increase in unemployment since records began was reported. We have a veritable collapse in the domestic property market in this city according to anecdotal evidence and what has been written. This morning, I saw a “sale agreed” sign on the south-side of Dublin. It was a bit like the first cuckoo of spring but I am not sure whether it will be followed by many more cuckoos. The construction industry will be seriously impacted by this.

According to comments made today by one commentator, David McWilliams, who is hardly a socialist firebrand, we have invested so much in property in recent years that we have exhausted the capital base in the country. We have a serious situation facing us. It is not an exaggeration to describe it as a crisis.

Again and again in the Seanad I have heard the Leader and others reeling off the achievements of the Government. The Government has had achievements but if it is correct to state, as I anticipate the Leader and others might, that the economic downturn is largely the result of international forces, it is incorrect to state the Government was responsible for the boom. As I pointed out before, one cannot have it both ways. One cannot state the Government created the boom but has nothing to do with the issues we now face.

In a compelling piece, David McWilliams also points out that at the heart of the job over which the new Taoiseach must preside is the stunning accumulation of wealth at the top of society. He recalls last year’s wealth of the nation report from Bank of Ireland. The top 1% in the country own 20% of the wealth. The top 5% own 40% of the wealth. Let us pause to consider the fact that 40% of the wealth of the country is owned by the top 5% of the population. This is one of the legacies of the boom and an issue with which we must wrestle as we consider future economic policy.

It is not enough to state we improved social welfare in line with or above inflation. We must consider the opportunities we will present, spread, foster and offer to the young people, whether in Limerick or elsewhere, caught up in social problems and crime. Will the weaker in society suffer with a downturn in the economy? This must not be the case. We must examine this splurge of wealth at the top, whether it is symbolised in the Galway tent or elsewhere. We need to turn this around and ensure economic policies develop the country.

Let us have all issues open, including this extraordinary inequality, which is one of the unfortunate legacies of the boom.

The Seanad sat today for the first time since the news that the Taoiseach is to step down from office on May 6. It was a lively Order of Business full of comment on the Mr. Ahern’s decision with the general consensus being that the statement ‘a week is a long time in politics’ has never been more appropriate. In my contribution, I stated that the Taoiseach’s comments on the Mahon Tribunal had spoiled what was otherwise a dignified exit. Below is the full transcript of my contribution:

Senator Alex White: As Senator Fitzgerald stated, it has been a busy time since we were last here. Last week in particular was very eventful. When I entered the Chamber today, I was prompted to look across, with mounting concern, to ensure the Leader was still sitting in the place with which we associate him. I am glad he is still there today.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I am glad to see the Senator here also.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should speak on the Order of Business, please.

Senator Alex White: I noted the remarkable sense of relief that appeared on the Deputy Leader’s face after the events of last week. No doubt the developments came as a great relief to him and his party, or so we are led to believe.

Senator O’Toole and others have made the point that it is a pity that the Taoiseach has not had the opportunity to speak in the Chamber during the term of this Seanad. Senator O’Toole’s suggestion might be a way of addressing this.

The very significant achievements of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, must be acknowledged without question, particularly in the context of the historic events in Northern Ireland. When the history of these events is written – some of it has been – many players will be regarded as having made a significant contribution. It can probably be said that few, if any, made a more significant contribution to promoting peace and ensuring a resolution to the Troubles than the Taoiseach. I have no difficulty whatsoever acknowledging that.

We should also acknowledge that, in general, the Taoiseach has been an extremely successful politician. Somebody said to me that one of his characteristics is what is called the “likeability factor”. I agree with this but the Taoiseach has needed the likeability factor, particularly in the past year or two. I wonder whether he would have survived as long as he did had he not had it. It is a pity that the departure from public life and politics of somebody who achieved so much is tainted. There is no question about this.

I will seek a debate on an issue related to the Taoiseach’s departure which Senator MacSharry raised before the break. It was a pity that the Taoiseach spoiled the dignity of the occasion last week – he was backed up in doing so – by again refusing to pass up the opportunity to have a go at the tribunals.

Senator Geraldine Feeney: Rubbish.

An Cathaoirleach: I do not want any discussion on tribunals.

Senator Alex White: I do not know why he felt he had to launch what I can only describe as an unwarranted and despicable attack on people doing a professional job in a tribunal set up by the Oireachtas—–

(Interruptions).

Senator Geraldine Feeney: Rubbish.

Senator Alex White: —–in circumstances in which we need to purge all the anger felt, as expressed by Senator MacSharry on the last occasion on which he raised this matter. Perhaps we still need to purge this anger because, although the Taoiseach is going, the tribunals are not. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have a parade of people asking that matters be left to the tribunal while the Taoiseach and a queue of Ministers never miss the opportunity to attack it, particularly on an occasion such as that last week.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator Geraldine Feeney: The Senator has very little else to say—–

Senator Alex White: Either one approach or the other should be adopted. Either the tribunals are to be maintained and supported by this House, which set them up through the motion proposed by Senator Cassidy ten years ago, or they are not. Remarks such as “low-life stuff” are not worthy of a Taoiseach, be it a departing Taoiseach or a sitting one.

An Cathaoirleach: I am allowing a certain amount of latitude but we cannot discuss the tribunals.

Senator Alex White: In such circumstances, I ask that we have the debate Senator MacSharry called for before Easter. I hope he has not withdrawn his call therefor. Perhaps we can have the debate in calmer circumstances given that Deputy Bertie Ahern is to some extent out of the equation, at least as Taoiseach. Let us determine how much the Members opposite really support a tribunal investigating the matters that occurred so recently in our public life.

The President of the European Parliament, Mr. Hans-Gert Pottering addressed the Seanad this morning on his trip to Dublin. During his speech, Mr. Pottering praised the valuable work of Irishmen and Irishwomen in Europe, their contribution to the workings of the Union and the value of the Lisbon Reform Treaty.

“I trust in the wisdom of the Irish electorate, which perhaps is the best-informed electorate in the EU about European matters,” he said.

I got a chance to to say a few words following Mr. Pottering’s address. He are some extracts from that speech:

I am delighted on behalf of the Labour Party to welcome the President to the House. We are affiliated to the socialist group in the European Parliament, which vies with the President’s group for largest group.We do not have the largest group currently but we hope to before too long. I had the pleasure of meeting the President last night and he said something to me that very much resonated in the context in which we are speaking.

The President stated that being in Berlin in 1962 or 1963 and seeing the wall being constructed represented the single biggest motivating factor for his entry into politics. All of us, whether left, right, centre, red, green or blue, celebrated the removal of this abomination at the heart of our continent. It was extraordinary to see the division it constituted in the continent of Europe removed so quickly in the end. It was also an enormous moment historically for Europe to see it go. It seems that in the context in which we are discussing the Lisbon treaty and having this debate we should not forget that this was an enormous symbolic occasion for Europe and the importance of a united Europe.

Unity in Europe cannot be founded only on symbols, important as they are. My party will support the Lisbon treaty enthusiastically and will actively canvass and campaign throughout the country for a “yes” vote. This morning’s discussion is an interesting and useful occasion. However, while it is not so much that storm clouds are gathering, in any debate we must address the serious economic issues we have on a worldwide scale at present. We have seen what happened in the United States and Europe.

What serious role can the European Union take to address the concerns of many millions of workers throughout the Union that at a time of economic downturn, the first to suffer are those on low pay and low wages? These are people already affected by the impact of the various inequalities which still have not been removed throughout the continent. We still have a 15% gender gap in pay, despite all we achieved. We still have a gap between rich and poor in all countries of Europe and between the security of employment many of us have and the precarious situation many workers face.

An issue I am especially concerned about is the question of the draft directive on agency workers, which we have debated in this House. I am sorry to state the Government has not seen fit to support it, at least at this stage. Does the President agree with me that it is vital a measure such as this is brought forward quickly? If it is not brought forward during this Presidency, it should be brought forward in the next. People who quite rightly are asked to vote in support of the Lisbon treaty would see they have a stake in it and that it has a real impact on their lives.

Something which often amuses me, and I saw it arise again in recent days, is the notion of red tape. I would like to reflect on this idea. People rail against red tape and no one likes unnecessary bureaucracy. When we criticise red tape we forget that in many cases this so-called “red tape” represents a major achievement. People speak about the burden of regulation. I would like to speak more about the achievements of regulation such as the fixed-term work directive and basic minimum holidays and hours of work which came from European directives. We also have the equality directives, including the new equality framework directive. All of these were initiated in the Commission, debated and passed at European level. I do not regard any of these issues as red tape or a burden. I regard them as real achievements for workers throughout Europe.

It is unfortunate that during the debate in the European Parliament in recent days, it was suggested by some Members that the new framework directive brought forward by the Commission, of which I am sure the President is aware, represents more red tape. If what is needed to combat income, gender and race discrimination is called red tape then I embrace red tape. If this is what it is let us have more of it. Of course, this is not what it is. It is a pejorative way of describing it.

It is a real achievement of Europe and if the workers of Ireland are to be asked to support the Lisbon treaty, and we will ask them to do so, they must see that ratifying the treaty will have a real impact on their lives.

In response to my concerns, Mr. Pottering stated that the EU needed to find a “middle ground” in relation to red tape.

“If we introduce too much regulation, then parts of the political spectrum will not want anything to do with Brussels,” he said. “Those who prefer regulation will, if left alone, do too much. We must take all people along with us on the European project.”

I attended the 21st Century Labour Commission last Saturday, along with a number of other Labour representatives and staff. The Commission was set up following the Party Conference in Wexford last November. As the party comes towards the one hundreth anniversary of its birth, the time is now right to re-examine what Labour means to both those in the party as well as the people of Ireland and to forward the party into the new century.

At the opening of the Commission, our party leader Eamon Gilmore made an address. Below are some sample comments:

As the name implies, your task is nothing less than developing a blueprint for a 21st century Labour Party. A party that is relevant to, and successful in, contemporary Ireland. Successful in motivating people to join us, successful in winning elections, and successful in improving Ireland.

Before embarking on your work, it is worth pausing to reflect on the significance of the task – on the goals that a 21st century Labour Party must achieve.

Why does 21st Century Ireland need a 21st century Labour Party?

Our party must once again find that coherence of expression. All of us have come into the party for different reasons, motivated by different moments in our lives, or in the life of our country. We could, all of us, give a passionate and valid statement of what Labour means to us. The passion and commitment of our members is the core of our strength as a party. But we must go beyond individual stories. We must, as a party, bring together those individual voices into a common chorus. We must be ready to present the Irish people with a clear and understandable statement of what our party, Labour, stands for in modern Ireland. Not just pertaining to the immediate concerns of today, but to Ireland as it will be between now and 2020 – and indeed beyond.

There is a need for us, in particular, to expand the meaning of the term ‘Labour’ in the way we speak and are spoken of. We must go beyond old images of a downtrodden proletariat and smokestack industries – beyond the idea of Labour as an interest group representing a particular form of paid manual employment. Yes, those are our origins, and we are proud of them. But the context of Labour today relates to work in a much wider sense.

Labour is not a description of work – or simply a label for a political movement. Labour is a set of values.

Modern Ireland needs Labour’s vision, but it needs all of that vision. We cannot, as individual members, or as a party, confine ourselves to the part of it that we find most comfortable. Labour’s values are, of their essence, confident and assertive, and we must have the confidence to assert them in their fullest form.

We are not seeking change for its own sake, but transformative change, rooted in Labour’s values. It is vital that we as a party, give clear and united expression to what those values mean in modern Ireland. To be clear, with one another, and with the Irish people, about what Labour is for. Giving our country a New Purpose, and creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to flourish.

My opinion piece on the Defamation Bill was published in the Sunday Independent on Sunday 16 March.

“The quality of public discourse should be a concern for all of us, especially for politicians. When we debate our defamation laws, as we did last week in Seanad Eireann, we have a responsibility that extends beyond self-interest and special pleading — whether by politicians or others offended by harsh criticism in the media, or by newspaper proprietors concerned with maximising sales and profits.”

“Despite the talk of people being in favour of the spirit of the Bill, of everybody singing from the same hymn sheet and of the Bill being premature and not thought through, the Labour Party, with the support of others, is proposing a real and practical measure to protect agency workers which is being opposed by the Government.

It is being rejected by the Government which will vote against it.I suggest we cut through the waffle and all the nonsense about everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.When someone presents a practical proposal which has been well thought through and is clear in describing the impact of the measure, the Government informs them this proposal will be rejected and that it might do something in the future and it will discuss it with the social partners.

“I refer to the contribution by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, which lists at least five or six reasons. He referred to the reason the Irish Government did not support the EU directive on temporary agency work.He spoke a nonsense about the fact there are different industrial regimes across Europe, something we all know is the case.Everyone knows there is a long history of collective agreements at national level in Germany and other European countries.This is not a new discovery.There is employment legislation going back 30 years which applies in equal measure across the European Union in circumstances where different employment law and industrial relations regimes are in existence in those countries, such as the fixed-term work legislation and the equality directives.Much legislation and many directives that have been introduced and implemented in different member states are implemented in countries that have different regimes and different industrial relations regimes.The Minister of State’s argument is a nonsense and an excuse.

“We have had debates on integration and the Minister of State came to the House for an interesting preliminary debate on integration. However, it is time we moved away from speeches, from essentially theorising about what integration is and from discussing the experiences of other countries and so on, and considered practical measures which could be taken by the Government to ensure a higher degree of integration in respect of students and young people, particularly in our education system.

A timely statement was made by the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland. It pointed out that at the very heart of any integration policy must be language support in schools. It correctly criticised the Department for failing to properly resource the teaching of English to young students in schools to help counter racism which, of course, is a much more complex question. However, nothing is more important than language and the teaching of language. It pointed out that newcomer students get two hours of English lessons per week.Notwithstanding that they get two hours of English lessons per week, they must spend the rest of the day struggling to understand what teachers are saying in science class and elsewhere. This statement came from teachers involved in schools and who know what they are talking about.It is entirely inadequate that the teachers who provide these lessons get only one day’s training. We do not have adequate provision of English language teaching in our schools. Far more work needs to be done in that regard and we need more resources. Let us have another debate on integration but not at a theoretical level discussing the experiences of other countries, interesting and all as that is. It should focus on how we can practically support the teaching of English to newcomer students in our schools. “